-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I said:
Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all* /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles? Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:23:49 +0100 From: Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I find useful to modify some of the scripts. (e.g. I don't need RPC and I use different command line options for sendmail.) I'm not saying that *any* of them should be a conffile. I want to know why *all* of them should be *by policy*. You gave me examples of some scripts that you find useful to modify. Ok, let's make them conffiles. But should they be conffiles because they are useful to modify or because policy says so? This does still not explain why the policy mandates *all* scripts to be conffiles. Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 13:56:35 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You can deactivate OR CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR of the program by modifying the script. You can already deactivate it by uninstalling the package. The real configuration file will be kept and will be used next time you install the package (if you have not purged it, of course). Yes, you can change the behaviour of the program by modifying the script. But this is also true for every script in /usr/bin. Why don't make conffiles all scripts in /usr/bin by policy also? If it isn't a conffile, this will break every time the package is upgraded The same could be said for any script in /usr/bin. (I frequently tweak the behavior of the init.d scripts). Ok, let's do it for init.d script which are likely to be changed. But this does not explain why all of them should be conffiles by policy. Date: 19 Dec 1997 21:11:00 +0200 From: Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all* > /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles? Because they are. Nice answer! This is a chicken and egg problem... > Please, don't say "you can deactivate the service by modifying the > scripts", Example from my machine: I have two diald daemons running simultaneously. This is, of course, done by modifying /etc/init.d/diald. I sure don't want this overwritten whenever I install a new diald. This is just another example that shows that /etc/init.d/diald should be a conffile, but examples are just examples. Why a script that is useful to be modified should imply that *all* scripts are useful to be modified? Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 21:19:28 -0300 From: Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all* > /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles? They are as conffiles as autoexec.bat in DOS is. Well, one could see autoexec.bat as a merge of all init.d scripts in DOS. Some of them are useful to be modified, some of them not. Let's make conffiles those that are useful to be modified and not those that not. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNJv3DiqK7IlOjMLFAQGcPwQAqKz1w32a7M8dyWQtFpcWm90dmtIjsseS LX/LIZ/wJXL+0esu7LxN7EG8ijl5l8BvHFvVKu/S0J+CWbCUqnjyOdkhdEepfbGg 46VJJS1CK4cIwnK6nG1iyAogXiE+Ic/QaKAUuN6l/0SPhN1Hj8PvwhYoDV0IyNjc 0AsG/pfzDjc= =BihR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
